New moves by Nauru's govt to curb dissent

Transcript

Nauru's former resident magistrate says the government's latest move to further tighten laws in an effort to curb dissent is a worrying sign of the further decay of the country's democracy.

The government on Tuesday amended the criminal code to make any comment deemed to cause emotional stress and likely to threaten public order an offence punishable with up to seven years in jail.

In introducing the amendment, the justice minister David Adeang said freedom of speech has of late been tainted with somewhat vile and tasteless words.

But Nauru's former resident magistrate, Peter Law, who was deported from the island last year, says the laws are clearly an attempt to suppress free speech, saying it's the latest in a series of worrying developments.

PETER LAW: Well they are really quite extraordinary. They're clearly an attempt to muzzle or suppress any free speech in Nauru. There is of course an ongoing issue about opposition members of parliament, and how five of the 19 members of parliament who have been effectively expelled by the government of Nauru from attending parliament. So they wouldn't have had the opportunity to comment or make any dissent or criticism in regards to this bill when it was going through parliament and now it has been passed of course, if they choose to, they can be arrested and charged if they offend a member of the government. Because that's essentially all you have to do is offend somebody and you will the potentially invoke this criminal offense. The disappointing feature of it is there is no defence. In most criminal codes of this nature, where there are attempts to clamp down or restrict freedom of speech I suppose, I mean Australia has its own issues in regard to the human rights issues and there are protections you can't offend people, but there is a defence. And in this case there is no public interest clause which says if a person was charged that they could go along to court and say well I've made this disclosure, this publication, or these comments because it was in the public interest to do so. So clearly, you know, the law as it stands is closing one of the last of democracy in Nauru.

JAMIE TAHANA: In the past year we have seen the judiciary expelled, we have seen opposition from parliament expelled, we have seen Facebook banned in recent times. Would you regard Nauru as a democracy anymore?

PL: Well I don't think you can regard it as a democracy when you've since last year, they've indefinitely suspended their opposition. So there's no dissent before parliament. And that's evidenced by this bill. There's no possibility for a significant proportion of the parliament to be represented and to represent their constituents or to bring the government into account, some form of accountability.

JT: What has brought all this about?

PL: I can only suppose that there is an increasing sensitivity by the government to criticism both within Nauru and outside Nauru. Why that is such an issue for them, I don't know. Whether they're planning an election would be a matter of supposition. So clearly you have a situation where the police and the government are not independent from one another, they're not respecting the judicial process and we have got a democracy, a parliament in which the opposition can't attend parliament and now they're being muzzled so they can't speak out. Any sense of democracy is missing in Nauru, that's clear.